Fluid Movement in Porous Bone via Blood Pressure: A Porous Media Theory
Bibliographic record
Abstract
It is widely believed that fluid flow through the network of osteocyte canaliculi is the primary factor that controls cortical bone adaptation.Due to the difficulty of considering mass exchange between different porosity sizes in cortical bone and the measurement of the influence of the blood pulsatile on interstitial fluid using poroelasticity theory, the theory of porous media is an attractive alternative for studying cortical bones.This study presents a dual porosity model with the theory of porous media including mass exchange between vascular and lacunar-canalicular porosities including blood pressure variations on the interstitial fluid.This model enables measuring and analyzing interstitial fluid's velocity in the vascular porosity (PV) and interstitial fluid's pressure in the lacunar-canalicular porosity (PLC).The results without considering blood pressure variations verify that the predicted fluid flow field follows a general pattern consistent with that obtained from earlier studies.Taking blood pressure pulses into consideration changes the velocity and pressure fields of the interstitial fluid within the cortical bone.In addition, this method has the potential to consider mass exchange between the solid and fluid phases in relation to chemical reactions within the cortical bone.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".